By Farah G. Decano

 

    BELOW is an annotation by Atty. Daphne Areola of a Supreme Court decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. With her permission, I thought of sharing this here.

“The family is considered an inviolable social institution in the Philippine Constitution, symbolizing its importance in society. Nonetheless, the reality of a broken marriage requires a legal framework to cater to irreconcilable differences in order to protect the sanctity of marriage. Can there truly be freedom from the chains of those imprisoned in a marriage that is already null and void? Notably, what stands out in the Supreme Court decision in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, is that it moved away from the overly restrictive interpretations and offered a more refined understanding for broken marriages.

“What used to be the main basis for psychological incapacity prior to Tan-Andal, was the Molina guidelines. The guidelines, however, equated psychological incapacity with mental incapacity, which ultimately required expert testimony to establish a mental illness as the primary cause of the breakdown of the marriage. The emphasis on clinically identifiable mental disorders, such as personality disorders, limited the definition of psychological incapacity and precluded many individuals who, even if they were not suffering from a detectable mental illness, were nevertheless unable to meet the basic marital obligations. In summary, the Molina guidelines were much more restrictive rather than humane and evolved case-to-case basis, but resilient in its application.

“The Tan-Andal decision developed a doctrine which resulted in a more flexible approach enabling a better and fairer determination of psychological incapacity. It now does not automatically equate it as a mental illness or personality disorder. Instead, the attention turned to a person’s “personality structure” – enduring patterns of behavior that take form in a persistent failure to understand and meet essential obligations of marriage. These obligations include not only emotional and physical intimacy, but also mutual respect, support, and shared responsibility for children. This expanded definition acknowledges that marriage may fail for multiple reasons, including ingrained personality traits and habitual behavioral cycles that may no longer support a fulfilling and happy marriage.

“In the Tan-Andal ruling, the Court relaxed the reliance on expert testimony, acknowledging that despite the value of expert opinions, evidence of ordinary witnesses, including family members and close friends, was of major importance. These witnesses may testify to the behaviors and patterns they observed, evidencing the spouse’s persistent failure to perform marital obligations. Making this change acknowledges the importance of having first-hand experience on various aspects of a marital relationship in order to have a deep understanding of that relationship.

“The Tan-Andal case itself involved a husband’s chronic drug use, which had begun before the marriage and continued despite the damage it was doing to the family. Since this was a continuing behavior the husband had, the Court found it falling under the term “psychological incapacity”.  Although marriage meant accepting each other’s flaws, this does not include actions which persistently poison the marital relationship and risk the well being of the family. This decision in the Tan-Andal case also reflects the acknowledgement of the Court that particular behaviors, while not explicitly a reflection of a clinical disorder, can carry deep and damaging consequences for the marital relationship.

“The Tan-Andal ruling has important implications for those seeking relief from irreconcilable unions. This acknowledgement of psychological incapacity emphasizes that the psychological aspects of the person may extend beyond medical diagnosis, thus allowing the person to resort to juridical relief. This change views human relationships more complicatedly compared to earlier cases and now allows for the possibility of a failed marriage to come from many causes other than a clinically diagnosed mental disorder. The Tan-Andal decision, moreover, makes a more refined approach to the determination of psychological incapacity, recognizing the relevance of first-hand circumstances.”

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments